Finance AI Index

Index › Vendors › Riskonnect · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

Riskonnect

14Judge labels

0First choices

2Negative labels

9 of 12Models named it

2Categories

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

5 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Riskonnect was named 5 times in Internal controls and 1 other category, where AuditBoard led with 18%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business60 of 113

under the label threshold

Mid-market46 of 71

under the label threshold

Enterprise23 of 65

under the label threshold

In internal controls · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named Riskonnect for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Internal controls and SOX	Tax and compliance	0%	46 of 71	25%	4	under 10 labels · led by AuditBoard at 18%
Treasury management systems	Treasury and cash	0%	93 of 124	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Trovata at 18%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Riskonnect yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Riskonnect across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	0	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	0	1

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct3 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative4 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained5 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative14 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“AuditBoard / Riskonnect — strong for end-to-end SOX testing and remediation.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Internal controls · scale prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

“while Workiva and Riskonnect cater more to enterprise needs” Kimi K2 · Internal controls · scale prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Riskonnect, over the 14 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Riskonnect was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Workiva9 of 141Not in the top three

MetricStream6 of 141Not in the top three

Diligent One Platform5 of 141Not in the top three

Vanta5 of 141Not in the top three

AuditBoard5 of 140Not in the top three

Drata4 of 141Not in the top three

Archer4 of 140Not in the top three

ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management4 of 140Not in the top three

Coupa3 of 140Not in the top three

LogicGate Risk Cloud3 of 140Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Riskonnect. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 12 of the 14 answers that named Riskonnect and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

worldmetrics.org10

gartner.com6

optro.ai6

highradius.com4

gitnux.org3

riskpublishing.com3

riskwatch.com3

sprinto.com3

v-comply.com3

8020consulting.com2

Forty-three of the forty-three domain citations in answers naming Riskonnect came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

highradius.com/resources/Blog/best-sox-compliance-tools4

optro.ai/blog/best-internal-control-management-software4

worldmetrics.org/best/sox-compliance-audit-software4

gartner.com/reviews/market/internal-controls-software3

worldmetrics.org/best/internal-controls-software3

8020consulting.com/blog/top-internal-control-management-software-solution2

exabeam.com/explainers/sox-compliance/sox-compliance-software-10-tools-to-know2

gartner.com/reviews/market/supplier-risk-management-solutions2

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Riskonnect's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Riskonnect, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at riskonnect.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.